How long should caliper brake springs last?

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 17:34:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2017 4:16 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:23:24 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

3. National health? YGBSM! The regulation is bad enough but actual
health care really? Check out the wonderful results of BIA hospital
system. Over a hundred years of rank incompetence, fraud, theft, waste
and error. Good luck expanding that.

You're conflating health care finance (insurance) and health care
(doctors and other providers). While connected to each other, they are
not the same issues.

People who complain that a government health care system would be
inefficient amaze me. They must never deal with insurance companies.

In the last year, we had an amazing go-round with our medical insurance.
My wife's doctor did some routine blood tests that should have been
100% covered by insurance. He sent the samples out to the normal
laboratory. Months later, we got a bill from the laboratory for the
full amount, claiming coverage was denied.

Leaving out much detail: I was on the phone in three-way conversations
between the laboratory, the insurance company and me. The lab rep was
telling the insurance guy they'd sent the claim in multiple times, the
insurance guy was saying they never got it, so re-submit. In the second
three-way call, the lab said they sent it in electronically, plus faxed
it to the number provided during the first call, AND mailed it in
hardcopy. The insurance guy said it never came in. Only after THREE
such phone calls and who-knows-what behind the scene was the matter settled.

The issue took over six months to settle. My total phone time was over
an hour, and I did that work for free. I don't know what the business
major flunk-outs working for the insurance company get paid, but the
episode MUST have raised somebody's rates somewhere - because the
insurance company would surely not let such incompetence affect their
profits or their CEO's bonuses.

Out of curiosity, how much were the blood test bills? Not to start a
long discussion but I get a blood test for several things quarterly
when I see my cardiologist and as a part of the bill, doctor's fees,
hospital charges, etc., the lab work is an almost negligible part of
the bill.

Granted that costs here are cheaper here but still.....
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 06 Aug 2017 19:20:37 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/6/2017 7:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2017 07:35:53 -0700, Joerg
On 2017-08-05 17:56, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 07:59:49 -0700, Joerg
On 2017-08-04 18:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2017 3:18 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-31 20:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/31/2017 5:50 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/27/2017 6:40 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:57:44 -0700, sms
On 7/27/2017 7:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:

-snip snip snip-

Or, in other words, "they've got a lot so they should pay" thinking.
( this kind of thinking could justify bank robbery :-)


That, sir, qualifies you for a PhD program in Marxist
Economics.

Actually Marxist theory is "from all according to their abilities and
to all according to their needs".

I have a good friend who grew up in Hungary and he tells me that under
(what he prefers to call) the socialist regime there was no aid to
unwed mothers, no food stamps, no unemployment payments, no cheap
peanut butter, etc. Everyone had a job and were paid a salary.

I asked him about people that refused to work and he scratched his
head and thought about it - I assumed that he had never seen a case -
and finally said something like, I guess they wouldn't get a salary
:-)

Given that I remember U.S. cities as being rather dirty, think how
clean and neat everything would be if they cut out all free money,
aid, etc. Just fall out with your broom, sweep the city streets until
noon and get a day's salary.

According to your president that ought to get a person $70 a day, $350
a week.

Added to the money would be that feeling of accomplishment and dignity
one would have. "I actually earned my way, today".

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 8/6/2017 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 17:34:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2017 4:16 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:23:24 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

3. National health? YGBSM! The regulation is bad enough but actual
health care really? Check out the wonderful results of BIA hospital
system. Over a hundred years of rank incompetence, fraud, theft, waste
and error. Good luck expanding that.

You're conflating health care finance (insurance) and health care
(doctors and other providers). While connected to each other, they are
not the same issues.

People who complain that a government health care system would be
inefficient amaze me. They must never deal with insurance companies.

In the last year, we had an amazing go-round with our medical insurance.
My wife's doctor did some routine blood tests that should have been
100% covered by insurance. He sent the samples out to the normal
laboratory. Months later, we got a bill from the laboratory for the
full amount, claiming coverage was denied.

Leaving out much detail: I was on the phone in three-way conversations
between the laboratory, the insurance company and me. The lab rep was
telling the insurance guy they'd sent the claim in multiple times, the
insurance guy was saying they never got it, so re-submit. In the second
three-way call, the lab said they sent it in electronically, plus faxed
it to the number provided during the first call, AND mailed it in
hardcopy. The insurance guy said it never came in. Only after THREE
such phone calls and who-knows-what behind the scene was the matter settled.

The issue took over six months to settle. My total phone time was over
an hour, and I did that work for free. I don't know what the business
major flunk-outs working for the insurance company get paid, but the
episode MUST have raised somebody's rates somewhere - because the
insurance company would surely not let such incompetence affect their
profits or their CEO's bonuses.

Out of curiosity, how much were the blood test bills? Not to start a
long discussion but I get a blood test for several things quarterly
when I see my cardiologist and as a part of the bill, doctor's fees,
hospital charges, etc., the lab work is an almost negligible part of
the bill.

Granted that costs here are cheaper here but still.....

If I were to pay it, it would have cost me over $180.


--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie writes:

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 1:24:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2017 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-06 07:46, wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Putting aside large scale producers, why should federal law apply
to individual consumers? Health and welfare laws are typically the
province of the states. Why shouldn't the states decide whether to
legalize individual use of marijuana? Indeed, the conservative
mantra is to rein in commerce clause legislation. I would think a
true conservative would support state regulation of marijuana.

Something like a third of the population is manic-depressive to one
degree or another. Drugs like marijuana make them feel better and
they are almost immediately addicted. The idea that this doesn't lead
to other drugs a large amount of the time is preposterous. I have had
a brother who dies from the long term effect of illegal drugs and
legalizing them doesn't change one iota that controlling the purity
of drugs only leads of overdoses more readily.


It ratchets up. Legalize one drug and the dealers start pushing the next
level. Goes via peer pressure. "Hey, you've got to try this other stuff,
much better". I knew a lot of people in the Netherlands who all came to
grief this way. The ones that didn't die were probably worse off. Their
organs hadn't become totally destroyed but their brains had, turning
them to almost vegetative status yet with decades of "life" in front of
them.

I understand your argument and think it's plausible. But OTOH, Portugal
seems to have done rather well with its de facto legalization scheme.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-dec...ecord-straight

Have you personally BEEN to Portugal? This is an entirely different
society that is FAR less likely to use drugs - on a financial basis
if not the fact that the Catholic Church is entirely against it.

I think legalization would have to be done very carefully, though, as
part of a total package. And I think an essential part of the package
should be to stop glamorizing use of pot (let alone other drugs) as
fashionable and funny. It bothers me when comedians, films, songs, etc.
glorify chemical-induced stupidity.

As Joerg pointed out - legalize one drug and you might as well
legalize them all because people will ALWAYS try the newer stronger
street drugs.

Alcohol is a drug -- more dangerous than cannabis. Alcohol destroys
more lives than all the illegal drugs put
together. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/causes_of_death Might as
well legalize heroin now.

If heroin had been legalized it is unlikely that fentanyl would be the
problem that it is. It certainly would not be sold, randomly, as heroin.
--

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 21:24:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2017 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 17:34:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2017 4:16 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:23:24 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

3. National health? YGBSM! The regulation is bad enough but actual
health care really? Check out the wonderful results of BIA hospital
system. Over a hundred years of rank incompetence, fraud, theft, waste
and error. Good luck expanding that.

You're conflating health care finance (insurance) and health care
(doctors and other providers). While connected to each other, they are
not the same issues.

People who complain that a government health care system would be
inefficient amaze me. They must never deal with insurance companies.

In the last year, we had an amazing go-round with our medical insurance.
My wife's doctor did some routine blood tests that should have been
100% covered by insurance. He sent the samples out to the normal
laboratory. Months later, we got a bill from the laboratory for the
full amount, claiming coverage was denied.

Leaving out much detail: I was on the phone in three-way conversations
between the laboratory, the insurance company and me. The lab rep was
telling the insurance guy they'd sent the claim in multiple times, the
insurance guy was saying they never got it, so re-submit. In the second
three-way call, the lab said they sent it in electronically, plus faxed
it to the number provided during the first call, AND mailed it in
hardcopy. The insurance guy said it never came in. Only after THREE
such phone calls and who-knows-what behind the scene was the matter settled.

The issue took over six months to settle. My total phone time was over
an hour, and I did that work for free. I don't know what the business
major flunk-outs working for the insurance company get paid, but the
episode MUST have raised somebody's rates somewhere - because the
insurance company would surely not let such incompetence affect their
profits or their CEO's bonuses.

Out of curiosity, how much were the blood test bills? Not to start a
long discussion but I get a blood test for several things quarterly
when I see my cardiologist and as a part of the bill, doctor's fees,
hospital charges, etc., the lab work is an almost negligible part of
the bill.

Granted that costs here are cheaper here but still.....

If I were to pay it, it would have cost me over $180.

That does seem high. Granted that blood work can cover a broad range
of tests, but still...

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 2:12:12 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 1:24:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2017 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-06 07:46, wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Putting aside large scale producers, why should federal law apply
to individual consumers? Health and welfare laws are typically the
province of the states. Why shouldn't the states decide whether to
legalize individual use of marijuana? Indeed, the conservative
mantra is to rein in commerce clause legislation. I would think a
true conservative would support state regulation of marijuana.

Something like a third of the population is manic-depressive to one
degree or another. Drugs like marijuana make them feel better and
they are almost immediately addicted. The idea that this doesn't lead
to other drugs a large amount of the time is preposterous. I have had
a brother who dies from the long term effect of illegal drugs and
legalizing them doesn't change one iota that controlling the purity
of drugs only leads of overdoses more readily.


It ratchets up. Legalize one drug and the dealers start pushing the next
level. Goes via peer pressure. "Hey, you've got to try this other stuff,
much better". I knew a lot of people in the Netherlands who all came to
grief this way. The ones that didn't die were probably worse off. Their
organs hadn't become totally destroyed but their brains had, turning
them to almost vegetative status yet with decades of "life" in front of
them.

I understand your argument and think it's plausible. But OTOH, Portugal
seems to have done rather well with its de facto legalization scheme.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-dec...ecord-straight

Have you personally BEEN to Portugal? This is an entirely different society that is FAR less likely to use drugs - on a financial basis if not the fact that the Catholic Church is entirely against it.

I think legalization would have to be done very carefully, though, as
part of a total package. And I think an essential part of the package
should be to stop glamorizing use of pot (let alone other drugs) as
fashionable and funny. It bothers me when comedians, films, songs, etc.
glorify chemical-induced stupidity.

As Joerg pointed out - legalize one drug and you might as well legalize them all because people will ALWAYS try the newer stronger street drugs.

Alcohol is a drug -- more dangerous than cannabis. Alcohol destroys more lives than all the illegal drugs put together. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/causes_of_death Might as well legalize heroin now.

Jay - that is pure unadulterated bull ****. The "costs" of excessive alcoholism is - reduced work productivity and that is a cost TO THE DRINKER and not to society at large. Drunk drivers are a clear and present danger but speeders are far more dangerous.

On 2017-08-06 13:24, wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/6/2017 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-06 07:46, wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-7, jbeattie
wrote:

Putting aside large scale producers, why should federal law
apply to individual consumers? Health and welfare laws are
typically the province of the states. Why shouldn't the
states decide whether to legalize individual use of
marijuana? Indeed, the conservative mantra is to rein in
commerce clause legislation. I would think a true
conservative would support state regulation of marijuana.

Something like a third of the population is manic-depressive to
one degree or another. Drugs like marijuana make them feel
better and they are almost immediately addicted. The idea that
this doesn't lead to other drugs a large amount of the time is
preposterous. I have had a brother who dies from the long term
effect of illegal drugs and legalizing them doesn't change one
iota that controlling the purity of drugs only leads of
overdoses more readily.


It ratchets up. Legalize one drug and the dealers start pushing
the next level. Goes via peer pressure. "Hey, you've got to try
this other stuff, much better". I knew a lot of people in the
Netherlands who all came to grief this way. The ones that didn't
die were probably worse off. Their organs hadn't become totally
destroyed but their brains had, turning them to almost vegetative
status yet with decades of "life" in front of them.

I understand your argument and think it's plausible. But OTOH,
Portugal seems to have done rather well with its de facto
legalization scheme.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-dec...ecord-straight


Have you personally BEEN to Portugal? This is an entirely different
society that is FAR less likely to use drugs - on a financial basis
if not the fact that the Catholic Church is entirely against it.


Strong faith is a major aspect of it. I have been in Portugal. It is a
very traditional society, at least outside of metropolitan areas (and
even in Lisbon it often is). Families have little tolerance for members
getting into drugs and they greatly discourage that. There is a
substantial shame factor playing a role.


I think legalization would have to be done very carefully, though,
as part of a total package. And I think an essential part of the
package should be to stop glamorizing use of pot (let alone other
drugs) as fashionable and funny. It bothers me when comedians,
films, songs, etc. glorify chemical-induced stupidity.

As Joerg pointed out - legalize one drug and you might as well
legalize them all because people will ALWAYS try the newer stronger
street drugs.


Portugal isn't that great of a success story anyhow:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...als-drug-laws/

Quote "... there has been 40 per cent increase in homicides related to
drugs, and that HIV infection related to intravenous drug use were by
2005 the third highest in Europe".


After I got out of the service my brother was in a band. I got into a
couple more as bass player and backup singer. Not one single person
in all of those bands lived past 50.

Not from bad drugs and not from OD'ing but simply destroying their
internal organs with drugs. My brother's heart simply quit when he
was 49. My older brother is 78 close to 79, I'm near 73 and my
youngest half brother is about to retire at 58. We are all healthy
except my older brother's bad knees from jumping off and onto trains
as a switchman.


Many people aren't medically considered an "OD case". I have met people
who were not assumed to be in that category but who had very noticeable
behavior issues (extreme shyness, incoherent thought processes, can't
hold down a job for any length of time) and when the topic was brought
up (never by me) I was told something along the lines "Well, he was
heavily into drugs a long time ago, is now clean but that left some
permanent marks". It doesn't only destroy organs, teeth, et cetera, it
also destroys parts of the brain.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-08-06 10:17, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2017 12:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-06 09:42, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:33 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-05 19:32, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2017 10:59 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-04 18:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2017 3:18 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-31 20:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/31/2017 5:50 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/27/2017 6:40 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:57:44 -0700, sms

wrote:

On 7/27/2017 7:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

In theory maybe but I've never seen that in real life. Rust is
ugly
but
in terms of % reduction of cross section of a spring, it's
meaningless.

The spring is not rusty. But it pops out with no effort, it's
just
not
springy anymore. It seems to be fatigued.

The brake sets are cleaned and lubed. I may still order some
springs to
use these brakes on another road bike which has lower quality
brakes. If
I were in Wisconsin, I'm sure that AMuzi would have the
springs in
stock, but the shops in Silicon Valley have little interest in
stocking
and selling little parts like this.


Probably because no one but you ever wanted to buy any :-(

Yet they are available online, so clearly someone has wanted
them,
and
there are instructions online that refer to the need to replace
weak
springs.

There are? Where?


The springs?

No, Joerg. The instructions.

Where are those instructions online that refer to the need to
replace
weak springs.?


Why does anyone need instructions to figure out that a weakened
spring
is no longer fit for service and should be replaced?

You're diverting the conversation. You said there were instructions
online referring to the need to replace weak springs. You haven't
produced a link.


Where did I write that? Quote please, no blah-blah again that you are
"too busy to back up your statements" or whatever.


In anything remotely like normal use, those springs last forever. The
fail about as often as the mounting nuts split in two.

Good grief, Joerg, it's about 15 lines up in the post!

"... there are instructions online that refer to the need to replace
weak springs."


And who wrote that? Is it so difficult to find out? Take the fingers
on your hand and count. If that is too difficult for you page through
the real posts and then even you will know.

Oh, sorry, my mistake.

Yes, I did confuse your posts and SMS's posts, because both you and SMS
were talking about the hazard of spring fatigue.


I was not. Fatigue and breakage yes, hazard no.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 2:12:12 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 1:24:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:53:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2017 12:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-06 07:46, wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:32:29 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Putting aside large scale producers, why should federal law apply
to individual consumers? Health and welfare laws are typically the
province of the states. Why shouldn't the states decide whether to
legalize individual use of marijuana? Indeed, the conservative
mantra is to rein in commerce clause legislation. I would think a
true conservative would support state regulation of marijuana.

Something like a third of the population is manic-depressive to one
degree or another. Drugs like marijuana make them feel better and
they are almost immediately addicted. The idea that this doesn't lead
to other drugs a large amount of the time is preposterous. I have had
a brother who dies from the long term effect of illegal drugs and
legalizing them doesn't change one iota that controlling the purity
of drugs only leads of overdoses more readily.


It ratchets up. Legalize one drug and the dealers start pushing the next
level. Goes via peer pressure. "Hey, you've got to try this other stuff,
much better". I knew a lot of people in the Netherlands who all came to
grief this way. The ones that didn't die were probably worse off. Their
organs hadn't become totally destroyed but their brains had, turning
them to almost vegetative status yet with decades of "life" in front of
them.

I understand your argument and think it's plausible. But OTOH, Portugal
seems to have done rather well with its de facto legalization scheme.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-dec...ecord-straight

Have you personally BEEN to Portugal? This is an entirely different society that is FAR less likely to use drugs - on a financial basis if not the fact that the Catholic Church is entirely against it.

I think legalization would have to be done very carefully, though, as
part of a total package. And I think an essential part of the package
should be to stop glamorizing use of pot (let alone other drugs) as
fashionable and funny. It bothers me when comedians, films, songs, etc.
glorify chemical-induced stupidity.

As Joerg pointed out - legalize one drug and you might as well legalize them all because people will ALWAYS try the newer stronger street drugs.

Alcohol is a drug -- more dangerous than cannabis. Alcohol destroys more lives than all the illegal drugs put together. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/chapter/causes_of_death Might as well legalize heroin now.

Jay - that is pure unadulterated bull ****. The "costs" of excessive alcoholism is - reduced work productivity and that is a cost TO THE DRINKER and not to society at large. Drunk drivers are a clear and present danger but speeders are far more dangerous.

See https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-facts-and-statistics:

An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

In 2014, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 9,967 deaths (31 percent of overall driving fatalities).

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/8/2017 9:35 AM, wrote:
I NEVER worked at a company that didn't offer medical insurance.

Ah yes, those were the days!

--
- Frank Krygowski